Podcast Summary
Awarded for irritating Russia: Ben Wittes received the Golden Heart Award from Ukraine for projecting Ukrainian flags on Russian embassies, highlighting Ukraine's sovereignty and irritating Russia
Ben Wittes, a prominent commentator and author, was awarded the Golden Heart Award by the President of Ukraine for his unconventional efforts to annoy Russia through projecting Ukrainian flags on Russian embassies. This recognition came as a surprise to Wittes, who does this activity for the sole purpose of irritating the Russians and reminding the world of Ukraine's sovereignty. This week, Wittes shared the story of receiving the award during a phone call from a friend at the Ukrainian embassy. While Wittes had known about the embassy's nomination for an award, he didn't expect the president of Ukraine to grant it. The award is a testament to Wittes' unique and eccentric approach to supporting Ukraine and adding to the tensions between Ukraine and Russia.
Founders' shock over a convicted felon running for President: The founders' belief in honor and presidential oath significance is challenged by the possibility of a convicted felon running for the highest office in the land, reflecting the evolving nature of American politics.
The founders of the United States never imagined a scenario where a convicted criminal could run for and potentially be elected as President. Chris Christie highlighted this during his recent comments, expressing his disbelief that such a conversation is even taking place. The founders believed deeply in the importance of honor and the significance of the presidential oath, which is why they likely thought it was unthinkable for someone of ill repute to hold the office. However, the current political climate has shown that these assumptions may not be as solid as once believed. The debate surrounding a convicted felon's eligibility for the presidency raises important questions about the evolving nature of American politics and the relevance of traditional values in today's society.
Founders' Concerns About Demagogic Leaders: The founders feared unprincipled leaders, with modern-day examples like Trump and Christie's criticism highlighting the importance of moral clarity and a lack of personal vengeance for effective leadership.
The founders of the United States were well aware of the potential for unprincipled and demagogic leaders, as evidenced by Alexander Hamilton's warning about such a person in a letter. While they may not have anticipated open felonies as part of such a character's actions, they were deeply concerned about the threat posed by such individuals to the stability and functioning of the government. In the context of the ongoing Republican primary debate, Chris Christie's criticism of Donald Trump's character was echoed by Nikki Haley, who expressed her belief that moral clarity and a lack of personal vengeance are essential qualities for a president. Ron DeSantis responded by emphasizing his policy agreements with Trump but his disagreement with Trump's methods and his own commitment to results and getting things done without drama or personal attacks.
Donald Trump's potential return raises concerns about GOP character: Despite Trump's failed promises and character concerns, some in the GOP continue to support him, highlighting a disregard for democratic self-governance.
The debate around Donald Trump's potential return to the presidency raises concerns about character and accountability within the Republican Party. Chris Christie highlighted Trump's failed promises, such as building a wall with Mexico's payment or draining the swamp. Christie's candidness about Trump's character was notable as other potential candidates, like Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, have struggled to criticize him. This issue of disregard for democratic self-governance has been ongoing for years and is now considered a requirement for some in the party. The fact that even those who have been critical of Trump, like Chris Sununu, are willing to support him despite his potential conviction, shows the extent of this issue. This situation, once considered absurd, is now a reality.
Lawyer argues for president's power to order assassination: Presidential power should not override constitutional checks and balances, maintaining political process crucial to prevent extreme actions.
The current political climate feels surreal and absurd, like watching someone turn into a rhinoceros in the middle of a hospital, yet we've grown numb to it. We must remember to stay shocked and maintain our ability to question the normality of such events. For instance, during the DC Court of Appeals oral arguments, a lawyer for the former president argued that a president could order an assassination of a political rival without criminal liability if not impeached and convicted first. This highlights the importance of adhering to the political process and constitutional checks and balances to prevent such extraordinary actions.
Trump's Legal Team Argues for Absolute Immunity to Kill Members of Congress: Trump's legal team argued for absolute immunity, which could allow a president to have someone killed with impunity if they had sufficient support from senators to prevent impeachment, aiming for delay tactics in potential legal proceedings, particularly those threatening him in the 2024 election. The court has been asked to expedite the ruling.
During a recent oral argument in the DC Circuit Court, it was discussed that Donald Trump's legal team argued for absolute immunity for official acts, including the possibility of ordering the killing of members of Congress during a State of the Union address. This argument was met with skepticism, as it could potentially allow a president to have someone killed with impunity if they had sufficient support from senators to prevent impeachment. Trump's main goal in making this argument is to delay any legal proceedings against him, particularly those that could pose a significant threat to him in the 2024 election. It is unlikely that the DC Circuit will accept this argument, but the timeline for a ruling and subsequent appeals could provide Trump with valuable delay tactics. The court has been asked to expedite the delivery of the mandate, which could come within a few days.
Uncertainty Surrounds Legal Challenges Against Trump: The timing and outcome of legal challenges against former President Trump are uncertain, and threats against judges can escalate and pose serious risks.
The timing of the legal challenges against former President Trump is uncertain, with the most likely scenario being a month-long Supreme Court review before a trial can proceed in the District Court. However, the Supreme Court's decision to get involved and the speed at which they handle the case are uncertain. Meanwhile, in the New York fraud trial, the outcome is expected, but the size of the damage award is still unknown. It's important to note that the judicial process can be unpredictable, and threats against judges, such as the recent bomb threat against Judge Tanya Chutkan, are a serious concern and should be taken seriously. These incidents can escalate and lead to dangerous situations, as seen in Colombia during the 1990s with Pablo Escobar. It's crucial to respect the judicial process and the role of judges in our legal system.
Allegations against Atlanta DA Fani Willis: Serious allegations against Atlanta DA could impact her case against Trump, requiring prompt response to maintain public trust
The allegations of misconduct against Fani Willis, the Atlanta District Attorney, are serious if true, and she should address them in a timely manner due to her role as a custodian of public funds. The allegations, if proven, could potentially undermine the integrity of her case against former President Trump. This situation bears resemblance to the Pete Strzok-Lisa Page scandal, where the revelation of their text messages by the Justice Department was a shocking act of official misconduct, regardless of the truth of the allegations. It is important to wait for Willis' response before making any definitive statements.
Trump's Distraction Tactic During Russia Investigation: Former President Trump and his campaign shifted focus from Russia investigation to alleged DOJ misconduct, potentially damaging trust in prosecutors, juries, and judges. It's vital to stay focused on investigations' substance.
During the Russia investigation, former President Trump and his campaign successfully shifted the focus from the investigation itself to alleged misconduct by Department of Justice officials. This distraction tactic was a central part of Trump's strategy to discredit the entire criminal justice system and save himself from potential convictions. The damage from this distraction could be long-lasting, as it may lead voters to question the integrity of prosecutors, juries, and judges. It's crucial not to let this distraction playbook prevail and instead focus on the substance of the investigations and allegations. Ben Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, emphasized the importance of not getting sidetracked by personal matters and instead waiting for a clear reason to address any potential misconduct. Overall, the strategy of distraction and delegitimization of the criminal justice system is a significant threat to the rule of law and the democratic process.
